Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

The first H. sapiens (there is apparently no consensus on sapiens being a species or a subspecies, so I prefer H. sapiens just because it's easier to write and less confusing) arrived in Europe around 30KYA: the first evidence of them was discovered in the Abri de Cro-Magnon in southwestern France, so we call them the Cro-Magnon ("kro-man-yawng") people. It's obvious that they managed to get on well with the Neanderthals and even interbred with them, since the average modern Western European has about 5% Neanderthal DNA.

Much later migrations of our species into Europe apparently came from central or southwestern Asia, since they brought the ancestors of the Western Indo-European languages with them: first Celtic dialects, then Greek and Latin, and finally Germanic. Their kin who preferred to migrate northward and southward spoke Eastern Indo-European languages, which include the Indic, Iranic, Slavic and Baltic groups.

A few other groups showed up at various times, whose origins are not easy to trace. This includes the Magyars and the Sami (often colloquially called "Lapplanders"). Neither group speaks an Indo-European language.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

While some anthropologists agree with this statement, the majority do not. The only other human population that is generally accepted as a subspecies of H. sapiens is H. sapiens idaltu, which may be a transitional subspecies that led to our own subspecies. Of course there are other transitional humans, such as rhodesiensis, who may have been our ancestors... or simply branches in the family tree that died out.

Anthropologists have made enormous advances in their tools. The DNA in a denisovan has been compared to the DNA in a Neanderthal, and the results show that they were not the same species, so the denisovans cannot possibly be a subspecies of Homo sapiens.

I have no references, but I think that sometimes there are examples of fertile young from an interspecial cross.

Click to expand...

As an aviculturist, I can vouch for that. In particular, the Ara genus (macaws) have been crossbred for decades, through many generations, simply to create birds with ever-more spectacular plumage.

Experimental aviculturists have even succeeded in breeding the gigantic blue hyacinth macaw, Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus, to members of the Ara genus. Apparently, the astounding difference in size does not prevent copulation, nor the development of the chick, whose size is about halfway between that of its parents.

These experiments take place in captivity, of course, where members of various species have been living together for decades, with no taboo about inter-species dating.

Fertile young from an interspecial cross? How about an interfamilial cross!

...from the 2nd answer in your link:
"The ability to produce fertile offspring is the defining characteristic of a species."

We know that HS Neanderthalensis, and HS Denisovan both successfully bread with(produced fertile offspring with) HS Sapiens.
So, if Devin is accurate, then we are one species.
True?

........
(but, then again, Devin could be wrong?)

Click to expand...

bred, not bread

Correct, since HS neanderthals and HS sapien successfully interbred (apparently extensively), we are the same species, just variants thereof. Same with HS denisovan, and likely others not yet fully described.

While Bells is correct that 'conehead' can come about by birthing, she does not address the volume issue. Distorting a HS sapiens skull (by birthing, or post-partum shaping) to produce a conehead does not appreciably change the volume. The longheads cited in this thread by me are typically about double the volume of HS sapien.
The query is - is this indication of a variant of HS sapiens along the lines of neanderthal, denisovan, etc.? DNA tests need to be done on the extensive skin tissue remaining on many of the skulls.

One can imagine that a few recessive genes (even one), when paired on both chromosomes, could lead to skull elongation. That alone would not be indicative of a new variant/species. In a population requiring pairing of the recessives to manifest skull elongation, one would imagine that most offspring would not express the recessive gene(s). If the population favored that recessive gene(s), over time it would become more abundant in the population (standard genetics). Sociologically, those born without skull elongation might seek such artificially, which we also see with that particular population (and others around the globe) by artificial boarding of infant skulls.

By ignoring 'uncomfortable' facts, science leaves room for non-scientists to conjecture wildly. Likewise, science censorship (or threatened censorship) does not advance science and plays into the stream of the non-scientist's wild conjectures.